4.3 Article

Proportions of demersal fish exposed to sublethal hypoxia revealed by otolith chemistry

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 589, 期 -, 页码 193-208

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps12469

关键词

Hypoxia; Otolith chemistry; Gulf of Mexico; Atlantic croaker

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [NSF-OCE-1633020]
  2. Directorate For Geosciences
  3. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1633020] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fishes exposed to hypoxia may experience sublethal effects that impair growth, reproductive fitness, and condition, with potential consequences for population sustainability. Characterizing sublethal effects of hypoxia exposure requires the ability to differentiate between exposed, and non-exposed individuals. Moreover, because sublethal effects may manifest well after exposure to hypoxia has ceased, long-term markers that facilitate retrospective identification of exposure are necessary. We used sagittal otoliths from 337 Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus sampled at multiple stations in the northern Gulf of Mexico to characterize exposure to hypoxia during the first year of life. Otolith elemental profiles of Ba:Ca and Mn:Ca revealed 4 primary clusters of fish associated with residence in normoxic, hypoxic, and estuarine habitats. Croaker exposed to hypoxia in the first year of life constituted 34% of all individuals sampled in fall of 2014, and this pattern was consistent across the sampling region. Young-of-year croaker exposed to hypoxia were smaller in length and mass but had similar mean relative condition factors to croaker of the same year class experiencing normoxic conditions. These results indicate that in some years, one-third of the young-of-year croaker in the northern Gulf of Mexico experience hypoxic conditions and survive. The potential for sublethal effects of hypoxia on growth may be important for future efforts to forecast population sustainability under chronic seasonal hypoxia in the region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据